See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/9039002

Biomechanical aspects of new techniques in alpine skiing and ski-jumping

Article in Journal of Sports Sciences · October 2003

DOI: 10.1080/0264041031000140284 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

159 10,309

2 authors:

Erich Müller Hermann Schwameder

University of Salzburg University of Salzburg
723 PUBLICATIONS 9,642 CITATIONS 325 PUBLICATIONS 2,520 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Erich Müller on 01 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 2003, 21, 679–692

Biomechanical aspects of new techniques in alpine

skiing and ski-jumping
ERICH MÜLLER* and HERMANN SCHWAMEDER
Institute of Sport Science, University of Salzburg, Akademiestr. 26, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria

Accepted 10 May 2003

There have been considerable changes in equipment design and movement patterns in the past few years both in
alpine skiing and ski-jumping. These developments have been matched by methods of analysing movements in
field conditions. They have yielded new insights into the skills of these specific winter sports. Analytical
techniques have included electromyography, kinetic and kinematic methods and computer simulations. Our
aim here is to review biomechanical research in alpine skiing and ski-jumping. We present in detail the
techniques currently used in alpine skiing (carving technique) and ski-jumping (V-technique), primarily using
data from the authors’ own research. Finally, we present a summary of the most important results in
biomechanical research both in alpine skiing and ski-jumping. This includes an analysis of specific conditions in
alpine skiing (type of turn, terrain, snow, speed, etc.) and the effects of equipment, materials and individual-
specific abilities on performance, safety and joint loading in ski-jumping.

Keywords: electromyography, equipment, hills, simulation, turns.

Introduction during data acquisition and often compromises had to

Over the past few years, dramatic changes have taken
place in alpine skiing and ski-jumping. In alpine skiing,
the skis have become much shorter, their side-cut has
increased in size and binding plates are now fixed
between the ski and the binding. The stiffness of the ski
has changed also. This evolution has, of course,
changed the movement patterns of ski turns to a great
extent, but it may also have affected the risk of
sustaining an injury. In ski-jumping, the introduction
of the V-technique (V-position of the skis during the
flight phase) has affected almost all the characteristics
relevant to performance of a jump. This was followed
by new regulations concerning ski equipment to
improve the ski-jumper’s safety.
Performance diagnostics are especially significant in
modern sport. The financial cost of biomechanical
movement analyses is high, because of the measure-
ment accuracy required on the one hand, and the need
to limit the impact of measurement sensors on the
course of motion on the other. This means that the
athlete should not be seriously affected by the measure-
ment system. In the past, it was not always possible to
achieve these partly contradictory aims simultaneously
* e-mail: erich.mueller@sbg.ac.at
Journal of Sports Sciences ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online # 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0264041031000140284
be made to arrive at the best possible solution. Within
the last few years, changes in measurement methods
have, especially in biomechanical field studies, made it
possible to gain new insights into the various perfor-
mance techniques.
This review presents examples of biomechanical field
studies using the new measurement methods. In
particular, we focus on the new carving technique in
alpine skiing and the new V-technique in ski-jumping.
Biomechanics of the new carving technique in
alpine skiing
Introduction to the biomechanics of alpine skiing
The literature on the biomechanics of alpine skiing can
be characterized essentially by three phases of develop-
ment. Contributions to the first phase were qualitative
studies of the forces and resulting motion sequences
during skiing. The early studies were those of Reuel
(1930), Brandenberger (1934) and Schuppe (1941). In
the 1960s, a series of contributions followed in the
Viennese specialty journal Leibesübung-Leibeserziehung
(‘Physical exercises–physical education’) (Gabler, 1959;
Schöck, 1963, 1965, 1966; Fetz, 1964; Nieke, 1964;
Hatze, 1966, 1967; Groll, 1969), which Groll summar-
ized for the most part in his book Zur Bewegungslehre des
680
Skilaufs (‘Concerning the theory of motion in skiing’).
Since the 1970s and 1980s, contributions of this type
have appeared and been widely distributed internation-
ally (Brehm, 1982; Göhner, 1982). The monographs of
Brandenberger (1974), Howe (1983) and Lind and
Sanders (1997) are especially significant.
The second phase is characterized by specific
quantitative descriptions of motion processes in alpine
skiing using biomechanical methods. The first compre-
hensive description was that of Möser (1957). He
developed a dynamograph in the form of a ski-mounted
mechanical lever gear. Using this device, the ground
reaction forces acting on the ski during the run could be
registered on paper strips.
Since the 1970s, several studies have been published
in which various methods for analysing skiing techni-
ques were described. Most worthy of note are the
contributions of Fukuoka (1971), Nigg et al. (1977),
Kassat (1985), Müller (1986, 1991, 1994) and Rasch-
ner et al. (2001), who were concerned with the sport
skiing techniques of ski instruction. Most recently,
biomechanical descriptions of the run techniques of
international elite ski racers have been published in the
disciplines of slalom and giant slalom. Especially
important are the studies of Müller et al. (1991),
Raschner (1997) and Raschner et al. (1999), in which
the three-dimensional kinematic and kinetic character-
istics of slalom and giant slalom techniques are
outlined.
In the third phase of development, which began in
the 1980s, key variables have been measured using
biomechanical methods. On the one hand, these inform
the quality of the technique of motion and, on the other,
they provide information about factors that may cause
typical skiing injuries. Fetz (1977, 1991) considered the
key variables for finishing techniques and developed the
Vorlagetechnik, which is still practised today in the
slalom and giant slalom when skiers are passing the
finishing line of the race. Many studies were concerned
with the optimization of the course run line. Nachbauer
and Rauch (1991) assessed the influence of the run line
on race time in the slalom and giant slalom. Nachbauer
and Kaps (1991) discussed the aerodynamic aspects of
the standing position of the skier and their influence on
running time in ski racing. Due to current develop-
ments in ski construction, studies of the relationship
between ski geometry and run line are especially
significant (Casolo et al., 1997; Mössner et al., 1997;
Margane et al., 1998; Niessen, 1999; Niessen and
Müller, 1999). The studies of Scharfenberg (1992) and
Mester (1997) focused on motion regulation during
skiing.
The loading of the musculoskeletal system during
skiing and the possible consequent causes of injury have
been examined by several working groups. Among the
Müller and Schwameder
most important publications are those by Nachbauer
and Kaps (1995), Niessen and Müller (1999), Nigg
(1997), Quinn and Mote (1992), Read and Herzog
(1992) and Senner et al. (2000).
Of particular significance for the biomechanics of
skiing is the international ‘Science and Skiing’ move-
ment, established in 1996. The communications to
congresses convened in 1996 and 2000 have been
published as proceedings (Müller et al., 1997, 2001).
A description of the new carving technique
With the introduction of carving skis, alpine skiing has
experienced a tremendous boom. Carving skis are
essentially more strongly waisted and markedly shorter
than conventional skis. Additionally, a binding plate is
mounted between the ski and binding whereby the
standing height of the skier is increased by 1–2 cm.
In carving, the ‘curved turn’ is important. Using this
technique, steering takes place along the ski edges
without any lateral skid component. The navigable
curve radius during carved turns is a function of the
following variables: ski waist, on-edge angle and ski
flexion (Fig. 1). The more strongly waisted the ski and
the greater the on-edge angle, the more strongly the ski
must flex to maintain contact with the slope along the
total length of the edge. The curve cut into the snow
under full contact with the slope is designated the turn
radius. Figure 2 shows the ideal cut curve radius as a
function of the on-edge angle with variously waisted skis
(Niessen and Müller, 1999).
In the ski methodology literature, it is often stated
that the run technique, in comparison with traditional
parallel turns, has been strongly modified. In a recent
study, Schiefermüller et al. (in press) used a combina-
tion of kinematic, kinetic and electromyographic
methods. To allow a comparison with the conventional
technique of the parallel turn, the same participants
performed parallel and carved turns with conventional
and carving skis, respectively, under otherwise identical
boundary conditions. On a well-prepared, moderately
steep slope (158), the test skiers had the task of making
six runs each with eight turns per run with differently
waisted skis (carving: r = 14 m; parallel technique:
r = 32 m). The runs were filmed with three video
cameras and the data evaluated three-dimensionally
using the SIMI software package (Munich, Germany).
The ground reaction forces and the pressure distribu-
tion in the ski boot were measured by two pressure
measurement sole inserts (Novel, Munich, Germany).
Simultaneously, it was possible using electromyography
to observe the activities of the gluteus maximus, vastus
medialis, vastus lateralis, rectus femoris, biceps femoris,
tibialis anterior and peroneus longus muscles (Biovision
system, Frankfurt, Germany).
Biomechanics of alpine skiing and ski-jumping 681

Fig. 1. Side cut (ski waist), on-edge angle and ski flexion of carving skis.

Fig. 2. Turn radius as a function of on-edge angle for variously waisted skis.

During the steering phase, the greatest load is on
the outer ski. The load is increased continuously
while steering into the fall line and reaches a
maximum of about 180% during steering out of the
fall line. During both steering phases, the force–time
courses are very uneven. This can be attributed to the
repeated lateral skid phases, as continuous steering
along the slightly waisted edges is very difficult. The
initiation phases are characterized by a load change
from the outer to the inner ski and a relatively
intensive increase in load on the inner ski. With the
introduction of the up-unweighting phase, the skis’
edges are shifted and turned towards the direction of
the new turn (Fig. 3).
During the steering phase, the knee angle of the outer
leg is greater throughout than that of the inner leg. With
relatively small fluctuations, it remains relatively con-
stant at 120–1308 (Fig. 4). The knee angle of the inner
leg at the onset of the first steering phase is about 1208.
However, it is reduced in the course of the turning
phase and reaches its minimum of about 958 at the
beginning of the initiation phase (the skier changes the
ski–snow contact from the uphill edge to the downhill
edge of the skis and initiates the turning of the skis into
682 Müller and Schwameder

Fig. 3. Ground reaction forces and knee angles during two turns with the traditional parallel technique (mean values of six runs).
Reproduced with permission from Schiefermüller et al. (in press).

Fig. 4. Ground reaction forces and knee angles during two turns with the carving technique (mean values of six runs).
Reproduced with permission from Schiefermüller et al. (in press).
Biomechanics of alpine skiing and ski-jumping
Fig. 5. Comparison of EMG of the vastus medialis and rectus femoris during two turns with the parallel (PT) and the carving
(CT) technique. Reproduced with permission from Schiefermüller et al. (in press).
the new direction). The steep increase in knee angle in
the first part of the initiation phase reflects the up-
unweighting movement and the large contribution of
the inner leg to the total unloading.
The carving turn can be distinguished from the
conventional parallel turn by the strongly pronounced
co-loading of the inner leg in all turn phases. Another
distinguishing characteristic is the relatively short
second steering phase and the comparatively long turn
phase of initiation.
The initial steering phase is characterized by a
continuous increase in load on both legs, with the load
distribution being approximately equal. In the second
turning phase, the outer ski is again more strongly
loaded, whereby the following initiation phase is
introduced very quickly. The turn initiation phase is
very similar in structure to that of the traditional parallel
turn. The up-unloading is first introduced by the outer
and then by the inner leg, whereby the increase in force
683
does not occur as quickly as in the traditional parallel
turn. The temporal percentage of the initiation phase
relative to the total turn is essentially greater with the
carving technique.
In the steering phases, the knee angle of the outer
leg is relatively constant at 125–1358, whereas that of
the inner leg is continuously reduced and, at the
beginning of the initiation phase, is only about 958.
During the initiation phase, there is a strongly
pronounced extension of the inner leg by about 408.
This extension motion, which leads to a very
pronounced unloading of the skis, is completed
relatively slowly within 0.75 s.
By a direct comparison of the activity of the
quadriceps femoris in both techniques, the essential
difference between the traditional parallel turn and
the carving turn becomes clear (Fig. 5). During the
carving turn the inner leg is strongly co-loaded,
whereas in the traditional parallel turn the activity of
684
the inner leg takes on a significantly subordinate
role.
In summary, the following were identified in the
comparison of the traditional parallel and the new
carving turn:
. In the traditional parallel turn during the steering
phases, the predominant load is on the outer ski,
whereas intensive co-loading of the inner leg is found
in all turning phases with the carving technique.
. The carving technique has a relatively short second
steering phase (steering the skis out of the fall line)
and a comparatively long initiation phase.
. The turn initiation phase of the carving technique is
in structure very similar to that of the traditional
parallel turn. Up-unweighting in combination with a
changing edge is seen with both techniques.
. Turns with carving skis demand better sagittal
balance as well as an improved edge steering ability
to remain centrally positioned over the ski.
. The more waisted and more flexible skis, together
with the greater on-edge angles during the steering
phase, make the much smaller turning radii with the
new carving technique possible.
Biomechanics of ski-jumping
Introduction to the biomechanics of ski-jumping
Biomechanical research in ski-jumping has a fairly long
tradition, going back to the 1920s. Straumann (1926,
1927) was the first to use biomechanical methods in ski-
jumping for research purposes. He attempted to
determine the most aerodynamically advantageous
body position during flight using flight path calculations
and wind tunnel measurements. Many different and
very specific methods have been developed to study
locomotion in ski-jumping from the biomechanical
point of view. The main research areas include: (1)
field studies of hill jumps; (2) laboratory investigations
of simulation jumps (take-offs in dry-land exercises);
and (3) computer simulations of the flight phase
(Schwameder and Müller, 2001b). Most field studies
of hill jumps have used standardized research and
training conditions; few studies have been conducted
under competitive conditions (Komi et al., 1974;
Virmavirta and Komi, 1989, 1993a,b; Arndt et al.,
1995; Yamanobe and Watanabe, 1999). Simulation
jumps are commonly used for the technique training of
ski-jumpers. From the scientific point of view, simula-
tion jumps are of interest because of: (1) performance
diagnostics and their connection to hill jumps; (2) the
comparison that can be made between hill and
simulation jumps; and (3) specific aspects, such as
joint power distribution (Sasaki et al., 1997), position
Müller and Schwameder
before take-off (Schwameder et al., 1997), the effect of
jumping boots on muscle activation and performance
(Schwameder et al., 1997; Virmavirta, 2000) and the
effect of headwind on dynamic parameters (Virmavirta,
2000). The main purposes of computer simulations of
the flight phase are to optimize the flight position of the
ski-jumper/ski system and to provide basic information
for the construction of hills for jumping. Many scientific
articles have been published on these aspects (Tani and
Iuchi, 1971; Remizov, 1984; Hubbard et al., 1989;
Müller et al., 1996; Müller, 1997). In most of these
studies, results from wind tunnel measurements and/or
analytical calculations served as input data for the
simulations.
The main biomechanical methods used in these
studies are (1) kinematics, (2) kinetics, (3) electromyo-
graphy (EMG) and (4) computer simulation. Our aim
here is to provide a review of the most important
biomechanical studies of ski-jumping, differentiated
according to the methods used.
Kinematic methods and results
Hill jumps
The two main aims of kinematic field studies of hill
jumps are the description of motion characteristics
during ski-jumping and the determination of kinematic
parameters related to performance. Results have been
provided both for the jump as a whole and for the in-
run, take-off, flight and landing separately. While early
studies concentrated on two-dimensional methods (e.g
Hochmuth, 1964; Komi et al., 1974; Baumann, 1979),
describing the motion in the sagittal plane, more
recent studies have also provided three-dimensional
data (Arndt et al., 1995; Schwameder and Müller,
1995).
From a kinematic perspective, the take-off has
received most attention. As optimal conditions for
flight are created during the take-off, this phase is
deemed crucial by many investigators (Komi et al.,
1974; Baumann, 1979; Arndt et al., 1995; Schwameder
and Müller, 1995). In this phase, the ski-jumper has to
perform the transition from an aerodynamically con-
venient squat position to optimal flight position within
about 300 ms and at a speed of about 25 m × s71. It has
been comprehensively discussed whether ballistic vari-
ables (those referring exclusively to the state of motion
of the centre of gravity, such as magnitude and direction
of release velocity, flight path, etc.) can be used to
explain the quality of the jump and jump distance.
Although several authors indicate such a connection
(Komi et al., 1974; Schwameder and Müller, 1995),
others have suggested that the ballistic parameters play
a minor role compared with the aerodynamic char-
Biomechanics of alpine skiing and ski-jumping
acteristics that describe the relative positions of body
segments and skis (Baumann, 1979; Arndt et al., 1995).
Many studies of the correlation between release velocity
and jump length can be found in the literature. Because
of the varying conditions, the results of these studies are
not comparable and, therefore, inferences are incon-
sistent. The range of the correlation coefficients is
surprisingly high [0.75–0.80 (Hochmuth, 1958/59), low
(Komi et al., 1974), 0.34 (Baumann, 1979), 0.40–0.67
(Vaverka, 1987), 0.68 (Virmavirta and Komi, 1993a),
not significant (Arndt et al., 1995) and 0.35 (Schwa-
meder and Müller, 1995)]. The reasons for these
inconsistent results are manifold. In summary, correla-
tions between the approach and release velocity to jump
distance tend to decrease with (1) increase in the
standard of performer, (2) increase in sample homo-
geneity and (3) size of the jump hill. Based on kinematic
studies, the magnitude of the approach and release
velocities observed during competition for reaching
greater jump distances are of subordinate importance.
For longer jump distances, the take-off and flight
quality are more important than a high approach and
release velocity.
The vertical release velocity or, rather, the compo-
nent of release velocity perpendicular to the take-off
table, is another kinematic parameter that has been
studied in relation to jump distance. Some of the
correlations reported in the literature include 0.85–0.90
(Hochmuth, 1959), 0.39 (Komi et al., 1974), 0.61
(Schwameder and Müller, 1995) and 0.30 (Arndt et al.,
1995). These results show that the correlation depends
on the standard of performance and the homogeneity of
the athletes analysed, the conditions of the study
(training vs competition), the size of the hill and the
technique (parallel vs V-technique).
In addition to these ballistic parameters, aerody-
namic variables such as body angles, body positions
and changes of body positions during take-off have
been studied increasingly with respect to their effect
on jump distance. Gisler et al. (1977) and Virmavirta
and Komi (1993a) reported a strong relationship
between upper body position and jump distance.
Three parameters indicating changes in body position
during take-off are important for a long jump distance:
(1) the generation of angular momentum during take-
off (Gisler et al., 1977; Virmavirta and Komi, 1994;
Arndt et al., 1995; Schwameder and Müller, 1995);
(2) high leg-extension velocity (Baumann, 1979;
Virmavirta and Komi, 1993a; Arndt et al., 1995;
Schwameder and Müller, 1995); and (3) the direction
of the take-off movement (Virmavirta and Komi,
2000a; Schwameder and Müller, 2001a). In addition,
the correct timing during take-off is important for
length of distance jumped (Baumann, 1979; Camp-
bell, 1980; Segesser et al., 1981; Klauck, 1989).
685
After the take-off, the early flight (about 25 m after
take-off) may be the most sensitive and significant
phase. Kinematic studies of this phase have been
published by Baumann (1979) for the parallel techni-
que using a two-dimensional kinematic approach, as
well as by Schwameder and Müller (1995) and Arndt et
al. (1995) for the V-technique using three-dimensional
kinematic analyses. Although Baumann restricted his
study to a description of the position angles, Schwa-
meder and Müller (1995) and Arndt et al. (1995)
ascertained performance-determining variables using
multi-variable approaches. Schwameder and Müller
(1995) found that jump distance correlated most
strongly (r = 0.89) with a combination of high vertical
velocity, high knee-angle velocity, high torque during
the take-off and a small body–ski angle after 20 m of
flight. An investigation under competitive conditions
(Arndt et al., 1995) has shown that a combination of a
large forward lean of the upper body, the lower body
and the skis after 17 m of flight, together with a large ski
and leg opening angle after 17 m of flight, correlate
most highly with jump distance (r = 0.92).
Simulation jumps
Simulation ski-jumps have not been analysed very
intensively using kinematic methods. The main interest
has been the kinematic comparison between hill and
simulation jumps. Using a two-dimensional kinematic
approach, Sasaki and Tsunoda (1988) reported a
release direction perpendicular to the take-off table for
hill jumps, whereas for simulation jumps a strongly
forward-oriented movement was performed. This
movement pattern results from the lack of wind
resistance and high friction during simulation jumps.
In another study, Sasaki et al. (1990) tried to clarify the
technique-specific problems of the take-off in dry-land
training. They observed differences between hill and
simulation jumps with respect to kinematics. Addition-
ally, differences were noted in the spatial–temporal
structure of movement for jumpers of varying standard.
Kinetic methods and results
Hill jumps
Force measurements in hill jumps are difficult techni-
cally, so the number of kinetic studies in ski-jumping is
limited. The most frequent method used is to measure
ground reaction forces using force plates installed in the
take-off table (Segesser et al., 1981; Vaverka, 1987;
Vaverka et al., 1993; Virmavirta and Komi, 1989, 1991,
1993a,b). The advantage of this method is that the
jumpers are not affected in any way by the measuring
system and that it can also be used during competition.
686
On the other hand, only a limited sequence (take-off
phase) and the resulting ground reaction forces can be
measured.
Virmavirta and Komi (1993b) reported that their
measurement method is able to register differences in
the forces of different jumpers and, therefore, indivi-
dual-specific jumping techniques. They used this
method to compare the ground reaction forces of elite
and juvenile jumpers during competition. The peak
ground reaction forces for the juvenile jumpers were
significantly smaller and occurred significantly later
than those of the elite performers (Virmavirta and
Komi, 1993b). Using the same method, Virmavirta
and Komi (1994) compared the maximal ground
reaction force of the contemporary top world ski
jumper (also the winner of this competition) with
those of the eight ski jumpers who finished second to
ninth under competitive conditions. The winner
proved to have a significantly lower peak force in the
early take-off phase and a significantly higher peak
force in the late take-off than the jumpers placed
second to ninth. The increasing force development
towards the end of the take-off phase may well
characterize the main advantage of the winning
jumper’s profile.
Tveit and Pedersen (1981) were the first to introduce
a device to measure forces between the boot and the ski;
this device was only usable, however, under training
conditions. Force data were collected separately using
load cells mounted in the toe and heel of the right foot.
The authors used this method primarily to indicate
differences in force production during hill, simulation
and roller-skate take-offs.
Fig. 6. Mean of the forces at the forefoot and heel over time during hill jumps (n = 22, t = 0: take-off). Reproduced with permission
from Schwameder and Müller (1995).
Müller and Schwameder
Schwameder and Müller (1995) used a pair of insoles
(Pedar, Novel), each with 85 capacitive sensors, to
measure the pressure distribution under the foot in hill
jumps. These data served to calculate the ground
reaction forces for the entire foot or selected and
defined regions (left–right, forefoot–heel, etc.). The
advantages of this method are the registration of ground
reaction forces for the entire sequence from in-run to
landing and the differentiation in separated insole areas.
The limitations of this study were the low sampling rate
of 40 Hz and the fact that the device cannot be used
during competition
Schwameder and Müller (1995) presented a detailed
description of total and partial forces over the entire
sequence from in-run to landing of 22 hill jumps (four
elite and four juvenile jumpers). An example of the
ground reaction forces according to forefoot and heel
are presented in Fig. 6. During the straight part of the
in-run, the distribution of force at the forefoot and the
heel is balanced; in the in-run curve (mid-way between
the straight in-run and take-off table) and during take-
off, a pronounced increase in force at the forefoot is
observed (Fig. 6). The landing peak reaches values
around three times body weight. In the context of this
study also, discrete force parameters between elite and
juvenile jumpers were compared. One of the results was
that the elite jumpers realized significantly higher forces
during the take-off than the juvenile jumpers (Schwa-
meder and Müller, 1995).
Force distribution monitoring with 16 pressure
sensors (Paromed) was introduced by Virmavirta and
Komi (2000b). This method of measurement is
characterized by a substantially higher sampling rate
Biomechanics of alpine skiing and ski-jumping
compared with the Pedar insoles. The insoles, however,
have to be adjusted individually to the jumper to
guarantee reliable pressure and force measurement.
Virmavirta and Komi (2000b) observed a balanced
pressure distribution between heel and forefoot in the
straight part of the in-run for all three jumpers. During
the in-run curve and during take-off, however, a
significant increase of force was noted in the toe and
forefoot (Fig. 6).
Simulation jumps
The first scientific studies of simulation jumps were
those of Hochmuth (1958/59). He was the first to use
force plates to analyse the take-off movement of ski-
jumpers. Simulation jumps on force plates have
developed to become a very helpful and informative
tool in the training process of ski-jumpers. They are
used in performance diagnostics, to analyse the
differences between hill and simulation jumps and to
study special effects of techniques and equipment under
dry-land conditions.
Vaverka (1987) studied the stability of time and force
parameters in simulation jumps using force plates. He
observed that: (1) time and force parameters were
individual-specific; (2) force maxima were correlated
positively with jump height; (3) intra-individually, time
and force parameters were very stable (r = 0.72 and
0.75); (4) the stability of the parameters investigated
correlated positively with the performance of the
jumper; and (5) the characteristics in the late take-off
phase showed greater stability than in the initial phase.
Pedotti and Rodano (1987) presented a method to
quantify jump quality and biomechanical patterns.
They used a two-component force plate to test three
groups of jumpers of varying standard during three
types of jumps. The jumps were characterized accord-
ing to the resulting release velocity, the release angle
and force vector diagrams. As release velocity differed
significantly among the three groups, the authors
assumed these parameters to be performance-related.
In contrast, there was no significant difference in release
angle among the three groups. The authors considered
their method useful to improve jump performance and
to develop helpful training equipment and support
devices.
Force plate measurements were also used to study
the effect of the initial position on dynamic character-
istics during take-off in simulation jumps (Schwameder
et al., 1997). Take-off duration, release velocity and
explosive force (peak force rate) from jumps out of a
deep (knee angle k = 788), neutral (k = 708) and high
initial position (k = 918) were measured in world-class
ski-jumpers. With the high position, the take-off
duration decreased and the explosive force increased
687
significantly compared with the neutral position,
whereas with the deep position the relationship with
the neutral position was the reverse. Regarding release
velocities, however, no differences between the three
positions were observed. Based on these results, the
authors recommended individual-specific optimal in-
run positions, adapted to anthropometric and sensor-
imotor pre-conditions as well as to the force capacities
of the jumpers.
In the same study, Schwameder et al. (1997)
addressed how footwear influences take-off parameters.
Compared with jumping boots, training shoes increased
the release velocity significantly by 4–5%, due to the
limited plantar flexion in jumping boots. A comparative
EMG analysis of the gastrocnemius supported this
explanation. Based on these results, the authors
recommended increased training specificity by using
jumping boots for simulation jumps. These results were
confirmed by Virmavirta (2000).
Virmavirta (1999, 2000) studied the effect of head-
wind on dynamic parameters in simulation jumps.
World-class jumpers performed simulation jumps in a
wind tunnel with headwinds of 27 and 33 m × s71,
respectively, and in no-wind conditions. Based on
ground reaction force measurements of take-off dura-
tion, peak force and momentum were selected as
parameters. In wind conditions, the take-off duration
was significantly reduced (by up to 14%), while peak
force and momentum did not change. The results were
explained by the supporting lift in the wind conditions.
Additionally, the explosive force and, subsequently, the
dynamic structure of simulation jumps were consider-
ably changed in the wind conditions. Wind tunnel
simulation jumps are more training-specific by taking
advantage of aerodynamic forces.
The first comparative analysis of hill and simulation
jumps in terms of kinetics was made by Tveit and
Pedersen (1981). They used skis instrumented with
load cells under the ball and the heel and found higher
take-off forces for simulation jumps than for hill jumps.
The authors concluded that vertical acceleration during
take-off has been assigned too much importance.
Vaverka et al. (1993) compared the dynamic structure
of hill and simulation jumps. They observed that, on
average, hill jumps reached 72% of the release velocity
of simulation jumps. On the basis of this result and
based on the high correlation between release velocity
under hill and laboratory conditions (r = 0.89), the
authors considered simulation jumps to be a reliable
test to determine the take-off abilities of ski-jumpers.
A differentiated and comparative analysis of the
pressure distribution on the sole of the foot between
hill and simulation jumps was presented by Virmavirta
(2000). The results were analysed for the in-run and for
three take-off segments (100 ms each). In all phases,
688
the pressure distribution differed significantly between
hill and simulation jumps and were caused by the
differing boundary conditions (friction, lift, drag) of hill
and simulation jumps.
Electromyographic methods and results
Hill jumps
There have been few studies on hill jumping in which
electromyographic methods have been used. One of the
most comprehensive and detailed studies was that of
Komi and Virmavirta (1997), in which the activities of
vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, gastrocnemius, tibialis
anterior and gluteus maximus were recorded over the
entire sequence from in-run to landing. Virmavirta
(2000) studied the activity of the tibialis anterior,
gastrocnemius, vastus lateralis and gluteus maximus,
together with the pressure under the heel and the toe for
the entire jump (Fig. 7). During the in-run, the activity
of all muscles is very low. The entry into the in-run
curve increases the activity of the vastus lateralis, tibialis
anterior and gastrocnemius, thus stabilizing the knee
Fig. 7. EMG and heel–toe pressure for a hill jump. Reproduced with permission from Virmavirta (2000).
Müller and Schwameder
and ankle joint. The jumper has to counteract the
additional load caused by the centrifugal force in the in-
run curve. The gluteus maximus still remains inactive.
During the entire take-off, the vastus lateralis and
gastrocnemius increase their activities substantially.
The tibialis anterior and gastrocnemius are active,
although not more than during the in-run curve, to
stabilize the ankle joint. The flight phase is character-
ized by high activities of the vastus lateralis, tibialis
anterior and gastrocnemius. During landing, the
activities of all muscles are high to control the large
transient landing forces and to guarantee stabilization of
the body.
Virmavirta (2000) also studied the activities of the
tibialis anterior, gastrocnemius, vastus lateralis and
gluteus maximus in hill jumps during the in-run, the
in-run curve and the take-off depending on size of the
hill (35 m, 65 m, 90 m). The differences were found to
be very small. In some phases and for some muscles,
significant differences were observed (gastrocnemius:
take-off; gluteus maximus: take-off; vastus lateralis: in-
run, in-run curve). In all of these cases, the activities
decreased with the size of the hill.
Biomechanics of alpine skiing and ski-jumping
Simulation jumps
A differentiated and comparative analysis of muscular
activity of the tibialis anterior, gastrocnemius, vastus
lateralis, gluteus maximus and biceps femoris between
hill and simulation jumps was presented by Virmavirta
(2000). The activities of all muscles differed, in some
cases substantially, between hill and simulation jumps;
the most distinct differences, however, were found for
the tibialis anterior and gastrocnemius. The differences
were described in detail and were justified by the
differing boundary conditions (friction, air resistance
and lift) of hill and simulation.
Virmavirta (2000) also analysed the activity of the
same muscles for simulation jumps with training shoes
and with jumping boots. While the differences for the
vastus lateralis, gluteus maximus and biceps femoris
were small, substantial and significant differences were
found for the tibialis anterior and gastrocnemius.
Wearing jumping boots resulted in a restricted plantar
flexion of the foot with the effect of reducing the range
of motion and, subsequently, reducing the activity of
the tibialis anterior and gastrocnemius. These results, in
combination with the relevant force and pressure
distribution data described above, support the recom-
mendation of wearing jumping boots in simulation
training to increase the training specificity.
Computer simulations of the flight phase
Most computer simulations of ski-jumping presented in
the literature were aimed at determining (1) the
dependence of flight position on jump distance or (2)
the effect of the transition from take-off to flight on
jump distance (Ward-Smith and Clements, 1982;
Remizov, 1984; Denoth et al., 1987; Hubbard et al.,
1989). Only a few reports have focused on aspects of
safety and loading (Straumann, 1927; Müller et al.,
1995, 1996; Müller, 1997). Kinematic data from field
studies (Baumann, 1979; Gasser, 1979) or results from
wind tunnel measurements (Straumann, 1927; Ward-
Smith and Clements, 1982; Watanabe, 1983; Müller,
1997; Yamanobe and Watanabe, 1999; Sasaki et al.,
2000) have served as input data for the models or for
validating the models.
Because of the different kind of models used in the
simulations, the results for optimal flight positions
differed quite substantially. The calculations of Ward-
Smith and Clements (1982) matched closely with real
flight paths regarding the angle of attack and showed a
negative correlation between the angle of attack and the
distance jumped.
Remizov (1984) demonstated that an increased
jumping distance could be achieved if the body’s angle
of attack was increased with respect to a convex
689
function. Hence, the path of this function depended
on individual aerodynamic parameters. On the basis of
these calculations, he claimed that there is only one
time-dependent combination of air forces to guarantee
maximal jumping distance.
Hubbard et al. (1989) presented a four-segment
model with time-dependent joint torques. With an
increase in the number of degrees of freedom in the
model, higher agreement with kinematic measurements
could have been achieved. In this context, the authors
emphasized that the quality of experimental aerody-
namic data is important for high-quality computer
simulations.
Watanabe and Watanabe (1993) measured aero-
dynamic forces and torques for the V-technique
using a 1:1 wood model in a wind tunnel study. The
positive influence of the V-technique on jumping
distance was confirmed through calculations derived
from wind tunnel investigations. Furthermore, the
authors observed that jumping distance was increased
by reductions in the body–ski angle caused by the
reduced turbulences on the dorsal side of the
jumper.
Müller et al. (1995, 1996; Muller, 1997) studied
aspects of loading as well as optimization of hill profiles
in ski-jumping. Their results can be summarized as
follows: (1) dangerous landing impacts do not result
from increased landing velocity at the end of long-
distance jumps, but primarily from the mismatch of the
glide paths and existing hill profiles; (2) almost all
existing hill profiles have a curvature after the K-point,
which causes a dramatic increase in the equivalent
landing height within a few metres; (3) due to the
extremely difficult and dangerous landings in the upper
part of the hill, particular care should be taken for the
design of the hill curvature adjacent to the ramp; (4)
glide path modifications due to changes in equipment
must correspond with regulations about the design of
jumping hills.
Summary
Biomechanics play an important role in ski-jumping
research. Both hill and simulation jumps have been
measured and analysed using the methods of kine-
matics, dynamics, electromyography and computer
simulation. Limitations on biomechanical data collec-
tion for hill jumps include the wide spatial range of
motion and, subsequently, the time expenditure in field
studies. Under competitive conditions, only kinematic
parameters for the entire sequence from in-run to
landing and kinetic parameters during take-off can be
determined. All other methods can only be used under
training conditions. Based on the studies presented and
690
the methods of measurement described above, the
following are important:
. The development of feedback systems to evaluate the
quality of hill jumps immediately after exercise using
kinematic and kinetic parameters. The jumper-
related optimum should be of central and specific
interest.
. A comparison of simulation jumps in different
conditions with hill jumps, especially regarding
kinematics, kinetics and the muscle activation pattern
using EMG.
. The testing and development of materials and
equipment.
. An examination of the effects of equipment and
material modifications (skis, bindings, suits, etc.) on
flight characteristics with the aim of increasing
jumper safety and determining groups of jumpers
with particular anthropometric and neuromotor
requirements.
. Basic principles for hill construction to ensure the
safety of jumpers, minimize the risk of injury and
preserve the attractiveness of competition.
. An analysis of musculoskeletal loading in hill jumps
(primarily during landing and take-off) and simula-
tion jumps.
References
Arndt, A., Brüggemann, G.P., Virmavirta, M. and Komi, P.
(1995). Techniques used by Olympic ski jumpers in the
transition from takeoff to early flight. Journal of Applied
Biomechanics, 11, 224–237.
Baumann, W. (1979). The biomechanical study of ski-
jumping. In Proceedings of the International Symposium of
Science in Skiing, pp. 70–95: Yamagata Prefecture, Japan:
Zao.
Brandenberger, H. (1934). Skimechanik. Rapperswil: Ra-
Verlag.
Brandenberger, H. (1974). Ski Mechanik Methodik. Deren-
dingen-Solothurn: Habegger.
Brehm, W. (1982). Das Schwungfahren auf Schi. Sportwis-
senschaft, 12, 376–396.
Campbell, K. (1980). Biomechanical analysis of take-off
technique in ski-jumping. Journal of United States Ski
Coaches Association, 3(3), 35–41.
Casolo, V., Lorenzi, V., Vallatta, A. and Zappa, B. (1997).
Simulation techniques applied to skiing mechanics. In
Science and Skiing (edited by E. Müller, H. Schwameder,
E. Kornexl and C. Raschner), pp. 116–130. London: E &
FN Spon.
Denoth, J., Luethi, S. and Gasser, H. (1987). Methodolo-
gical problems in optimization of the flight phase in ski-
jumping. International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 3,
404–418.
Müller and Schwameder
Fetz, F. (1964). Reziprozitätsprinzip und Torsionsstab-
sowie Pendeltheorie im modernen Skilauf. Leibesübung-
Leibeserziehung, 18(3), 5–6.
Fetz, F. (1977). Zur Biomechanik des Schilaufs. Innsbruck:
Inn-Verlag.
Fetz, F. (1991). Biomechanik alpiner Zieleinlauftechniken.
In Biomechanik des alpinen Skilaufs (edited by F. Fetz and
E. Müller), pp. 124–130. Stuttgart: Enke.
Fukuoka, T. (1971). Zur Biomechanik und Kybernetik des
alpinen Skilaufs. Untersuchung der Belastungs- und Kniewin-
keländerung bei Wedelbewegungen. Frankfurt am Main:
Limpert.
Gabler, R. (1959). Physikalische Grundlagen der Schisch-
wünge. Leibesübung-Leibeserziehung, 13(1), 1–4.
Gasser, H. (1979). Analysis of ski-jumping, Oberstdorf
1979. Research Report for the FIS in Cooperation with the
Biomechanical Laboratory of the ETH Zurich. Zurich: ETH
(in German).
Gisler, E., Nigg, B. and Waser, J. (1977). Biomechanical
studies in ski-jumping. In Biomechanics of Skiing (edited
by F. Fetz), pp. 98–107. Innsbruck: Inn-Verlag (in
German).
Göhner, U. (1982). Bewegungstheoretische Grundlagen der
alpinen Skitechnik unter funktionaler Perspektive. In
Skilauf (edited by G. Schoder), pp. 81–96. Stuttgart:
CD-Verlag.
Groll, H. (1969). Zur Bewegungslehre des Schilaufs. Wien:
Österr. Bundesverlag.
Hatze, H. (1966). Die biomechanische und physikalische
Grundlegung der Hangschrägfahrstellung im Schilauf.
Leibesübung-Leibeserziehung, 20(9), 1–3.
Hatze, H. (1967). Die präzise Darstellung der Tiefentlas-
tung, der Oberkörpergegendrehung und der Gegenschrau-
bung im Schilauf. Leibesübung-Leibeserziehung, 21(3), 1–3.
Hochmuth, G. (1958/59). Studies of the effects of the take-
off on jump length in ski-jumping. Wissenschaftliche
Zeitschrift der Hochschule für Körperkultur, 1, 29–59 (in
German).
Hochmuth, G. (1959). Die zweckmäßigste Absprungtechnik
im Skispringen. Theorie und Praxis der Körperkultur, 8,
505–518.
Hochmuth, G. (1964). Untersuchungen über die zweckmäßigste
Körper- und Skihaltung im Verlauf des Fluges beim skisprin-
gen. Habilitationsschrift. Leipzig: Eigenverlag.
Howe, J. (1983). Skiing Mechanics. Laporte, CO: Poudre.
Hubbard, M., Hibbard, R., Yeadon, M. and Komor, A.
(1989). A multisegmental dynamic model of ski-jumping.
International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 5, 258–274.
Kassat, G. (1985). Schein und Wirklichkeit Parallelen Skifah-
rens. Münster: Selbstverlag.
Klauck J. (1989). Skispringen. In Biomechanik der Sportarten
(edited by K. Willimczik), pp. 363–376. Reinbek: Enke (in
German).
Komi, P. and Virmavirta, M. (1997). Ski-jumping take-off
performance: determining factors and methodological
advances. In Science and Skiing (edited by E. Müller, H.
Schwameder, E. Kornexl and C. Raschner), pp. 3–26.
London: E & FN Spon.
Komi, P., Nelson, R. and Pulli, M. (1974). Biomechanics of
ski-jumping. Leistungssport, 4, 431–450 (in German).
Biomechanics of alpine skiing and ski-jumping
Lind, D. and Sanders, S.P. (1997). The Physics of Skiing.
New York: Woodbury.
Margane, J., Trzecinski, L., Babiel, S. and Neumaier, A.
(1998). A mechanical apparatus executing turns on carver
skis. In Proceedings I of the XVI ISBS Symposium 1998
(edited by H. Riehle and M. Vieten), pp. 285–289.
Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz.
Mester, J. (1997). Movement regulation in alpine skiing. In
Science and Skiing (edited by E. Müller, H. Schwameder,
E. Kornexl and C. Raschner), pp. 333–348. London: E &
FN Spon.
Möser, G. (1957). Untersuchung der Belastungsverhältnisse
bei der alpinen Skitechnik. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg.
Mössner, M., Nachbauer, W. and Schindelwig, K. (1997).
Einfluß der Skitaillierung auf Schwungradius und Belas-
tung. Sportverletzung-Sportschaden, 11, 140–145.
Müller, E. (1986). Biomechnische Analyse alpiner Schilauftech-
niken. Innsbruck: Inn-Verlag.
Müller, E. (1991). Biomechanische Analysen moderner
alpiner Skilauftechniken in unterschiedlichen Schnee-,
Gelände- und Pistensituationen. In Biomechanik des alpinen
Skilaufs (edited by F. Fetz and E. Müller), pp. 1–49.
Stuttgart: Enke.
Müller, E. (1994). Analysis of the biomechanical character-
istics of different swinging techniques in alpine skiing.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 12, 261–278.
Müller, E., Brunner, F., Kornexl, E. and Raschner, C.
(1991). Biomechanische Analyse von Starttechniken im
alpinen Schirennlauf. In Biomechanik des alpinen Skilaufs
(edited by F. Fetz and E. Müller), pp. 112–123. Stuttgart:
Enke.
Müller, E., Schwameder, H., Kornexl, E. and Raschner, C.
(eds) (1997). Science and Skiing. London: E & FN Spon.
Müller, E., Schwameder, H., Raschner, C., Lindinger, S.
and Kornexl, E. (eds) (2001). Science and Skiing II.
Hamburg: Kovac.
Müller, W. (1997). Biomechanics of ski-jumping – scientific
jumping hill design. In Science and Skiing (edited by E.
Müller, H. Schwameder, E. Kornexl and C. Raschner),
pp. 36–48. London: E & FN Spon.
Müller, W., Platzer, D. and Schmölzer, B. (1995). Scientific
approach to ski safety. Nature, 375, 455.
Müller, W., Platzer, D. and Schmölzer, B. (1996). Dynamics
of human flight on skis: improvements in safety and
fairness in ski-jumping. Journal of Biomechanics, 29, 1061–
1068.
Nachbauer, W. and Kaps, P. (1991). Fahrzeitbestimmende
Faktoren beim Schußfahren. In Biomechanik des alpinen
Skilaufs (edited by F. Fetz and E. Müller), pp. 101–111.
Stuttgart: Enke.
Nachbauer, W. and Kaps, P. (1995). Cruciate ligament
forces during landing in downhill skiing. In Proceedings of
the XVth Congress of the International Society of Biomechanics
(edited by K. Häkkinen, K.L. Keskinen, P.V. Komi and
A. Mero), pp. 654–655. Jyväskylä: LIKES.
Nachbauer, W. and Rauch, A. (1991). Biomechanische
Analysen der Torlauf- und Riesentorlauftechnik. In
Biomechanik des alpinen Skilaufs (edited by F. Fetz and
E. Müller), pp. 50–100. Stuttgart: Enke.
691
Nieke, H. (1964). Innere und äußere Kräfte bei der
Richtungsänderung im Schilauf. Leibesübung-Leibeserzie-
hung, 18(3), 3–5.
Niessen, W. (1999). Strukturdynamischer Ansatz zur Verbes-
serung des Fahrverhaltens von Alpinskiern beim Schwingen.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Salzburg.
Niessen, W. and Müller, E. (1999). Carving – biomecha-
nische Aspekte zur Verwendung stark taillierter Skier und
erhöhter Standflächen im alpinen Skisport. Leistungssport,
29(1), 39–44.
Nigg, B.M. (1997). Load of the locomotor system during
skiing: a biomechanical perspective. In Science and Skiing
(edited by E. Müller, H. Schwameder, E. Kornexl and C.
Raschner), pp. 27–35. London: E & FN Spon.
Nigg, B.M., Neukomm, P.A. and Lüthy, S. (1977). Die
Belastung des menschlichen Bewegungsapparates beim
Schifahren. In Zur Biomechanik des Schilaufs (edited by F.
Fetz), pp. 80–89. Innsbruck: Inn-Verlag.
Pedotti, A. and Rodano, R. (1987). Evaluation of biome-
chanical motor patterns in ski jumpers during simulation
of takeoff. In Biomechanics X-B (edited by B. Jonsson), pp.
679–684. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Quinn, T.P. and Mote, C.D. (1992). Prediction of the
loading along the leg during snow skiing. Journal of
Biomechanics, 25, 609–625.
Raschner, C. (1997). Kinematische und dynamische Tech-
nikanalyse im Slalom als Grundlage für die Entwicklung
skispezifischer Krafttrainingsgeräte und Krafttrainings-
methoden. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Salzburg.
Raschner, C., Kösters, A., Müller, E., Schwameder, H.,
Zallinger, G. and Niessen, W. (1999). Dynamische und
kinematische Technikanalyse im Riesenslalom bei Weltklas-
seläufern. Spectrum der Sportwissenschaften, 11(suppl.), 57–64.
Raschner, C., Schiefermüller, C., Zallinger, G., Hofer, E.,
Müller, E. and Brunner, F. (2001). Carving turns versus
traditional parallel turns – a comparative biomechanical
analysis. In 2nd International Congress on Skiing and Science,
Abstract Book (edited by E. Müller, R. Roithner, W.
Niessen, C. Raschner and H. Schwameder), pp. 56–57.
Salzburg: Eigenverlag.
Read, L. and Herzog, W. (1992). External loading at the
knee joint for landing movements in alpine skiing.
International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 8, 62–80.
Remizov, L. (1984). Biomechanics of optimal flight in ski-
jumping. Journal of Biomechanics, 17, 167–171.
Reuel, F. (1930). Neue Möglichkeiten im Skilauf. Stuttgart:
Dieck.
Sasaki, T. and Tsunoda, K. (1988). Analytical study of take-
off action in ski-jumping. Hokkaido Journal of Physical
Education, 23, 13–19.
Sasaki, T., Yagi, H. and Tsunoda, K. (1990). Kinematical
study of take-off actions in ski-jumping – video analysis in
the take-off actions and postures of ready position.
Hokkaido Journal of Physical Education, 25, 19–28.
Sasaki, T., Tsunoda, K., Uchida, E., Hoshino, H. and Ono,
M. (1997). Joint power production in take-off action
during ski-jumping. In Science and Skiing (edited by E.
Müller, H. Schwameder, E. Kornexl and C. Raschner),
pp. 309–319. London: E & FN Spon.
692
Sasaki, T., Tsunoda, K., Hoshino, H. and Ono, M. (2000).
Aerodynamic force during flight phase in ski-jumping. In
Science and Skiing II (edited by E. Müller, H. Schwame-
der, C. Raschner, S. Lindinger and E. Kornexl), pp. 115–
128. Hamburg: Kovac.
Scharfenberg, A. (1992). Bewegungsregulation aus biolo-
gischer Sicht in unterschiedlichen Anforderungssituatio-
nen an Beispielen des Skisports. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Cologne.
Schiefermüller, C., Schwameder, H. and Müller, E. (in
press). Biomechanische Analyse moderner Carving-
schwungtechniken. Spectrum der Sportwissenschaft.
Schöck, P. (1963). Zur Aerodynamik des Abfahrtslaufs.
Leibesübung-Leibeserziehung, 17(10), 5–9.
Schöck, P. (1965). Bogen und Schwung. Leibesübung-
Leibeserziehung, 19(10), 4–7.
Schöck, P. (1966). Zur Entlastung der Schier. Leibesübung-
Leibeserziehung, 20(3), 10–11.
Schuppe, H. (1941). Physik der Leibesübungen. Stuttgart:
Enke.
Schwameder, H. and Müller, E. (1995). Biomechanical
description and analysis of the V-technique in ski-jumping.
Spectrum der Sportwissenschaften, 71, 5–36 (in German).
Schwameder, H. and Müller, E. (2001a). Biomechanical
basics and aspects of training specific concepts in ski-
jumping. In Skilauf und Wissenschaft. Fachschriftenreihe des
Österreichischen Skiverbandes, Heft 1/15, Trainerakademie
2000 in Rif (edited by E. Müller, S. Lindinger, C.
Raschner and H. Schwameder), pp. 65–91. Innsbruck:
Österreichischer Skiverband.
Schwameder, H. and Müller, E. (2001b). Biomechanics in
ski-jumping: a review. European Journal of Sport Science,
1(1) (electronic journal available at http://
205.198.253.183/ejss/).
Schwameder, H., Müller, E., Raschner, C. and Brunner, F.
(1997). Aspects of technique-specific strength training in
ski-jumping. In Science and Skiing (edited by E. Müller, H.
Schwameder, E. Kornexl and C. Raschner), pp. 309–319.
London: E & FN Spon.
Segesser, A., Neukomm, P., Nigg, B., Ruegg, P. and
Troxler, G. (1981). Force measuring system for the
take-off in ski-jumping. In Biomechanics VII-B (edited by
A. Morecki, K. Fedelius, K. Kedzior and A. Wit), pp.
478–482. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Senner, V., Lehner, S., Wallrapp, W. and Schaff, P. (2000).
The boot induced ACL rupture in alpine skiing: current
knowledge and feasible solutions. In 2nd International
Congress on Skiing and Science, Abstract Book (edited by E.
Müller, R. Roithner, W. Niessen, C. Raschner and H.
Schwameder), pp. 22–23. Salzburg: Eigenverlag.
Straumann, R. (1926). Vom Skiweitsprung und seiner
Mechanik (1 Teil). Ski Jahrbuch des Schweizerischen Ski-
Verbandes, 20, 11–29 (in German).
Straumann, R. (1927). Vom Skiweitsprung und seiner
Mechanik (2 Teil). Ski Jahrbuch des Schweizerischen Ski-
Verbandes, 22, 34–64 (in German).
Tani, I. and Iuchi, M. (1971). Flight-mechanical investiga-
tion of ski-jumping. In Scientific Study of Skiing in Japan
(edited by K. Kinoshita), pp. 33–52. Tokyo.
View publication stats
Müller and Schwameder
Tveit, P. and Pedersen, P.O. (1981). Forces in the take-off
in ski-jumping. In Biomechanics VII-B (edited by A.
Morecki, K. Fedelius, K. Kedzior and A. Wit), pp. 472–
477. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Vaverka, F. (1987). The Biomechanics of Ski-jumping.
Olomouc: University of Olomouc (in Czech).
Vaverka, F., Janura, M., Salinger, J. and Brichta, J. (1993).
Comparison of the take-off measured under laboratory
and jumping hill conditions. In XIVth Congress of the
International Society of Biomechanics Abstracts (edited by S.
Metral), pp. 1406–1407. Paris: ISB.
Virmavirta, M. (1999). Biomechanics of ski-jumping take-
off. In Limiting Factors of Human Neuromuscular Perfor-
mance (edited by H. Kyröläinen, J. Avela and T. Takala),
pp. 113–114. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Virmavirta M. (2000). Limiting factors in ski-jumping take-
off. Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä.
Virmavirta, M. and Komi, P. (1989). The takeoff forces in
ski-jumping. International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 5,
248–257.
Virmavirta, M. and Komi, P. (1991). Electromyographic
analysis of muscle activation during ski-jumping perfor-
mance. International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 7, 175–
182.
Virmavirta, M. and Komi, P. (1993a). Measurement of take-
off forces in ski-jumping Part I. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine and Science in Sport, 3, 229–236.
Virmavirta, M. and Komi, P. (1993b). Measurement of take-
off forces in ski-jumping Part II. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine and Science in Sport, 3, 237–243.
Virmavirta, M. and Komi, P. (1994). Takeoff analysis of a
champion ski jumper. Journal of Coaching and Sport
Science, 1, 23–27.
Virmavirta, M. and Komi, P.V. (2000a). Factors influencing
the ‘explosiveness’ of ski-jumping take-off. In Science and
Skiing II (edited by E. Müller, H. Schwameder, C.
Raschner, S. Lindinger and E. Kornexl), pp. 115–128.
Hamburg: Kovac.
Virmavirta, M. and Komi, P.V. (2000b). Plantar pressures
during ski-jumping take-off. Journal of Applied Biomecha-
nics, 16, 320–326.
Ward-Smith, A. and Clements, D. (1982). Experimental
determination of the aerodynamic characteristics of ski
jumpers. Aeronautical Journal, 86, 384–391.
Watanabe, K. (1983). Aerodynamic investigation of arm
position during the flight phase in ski-jumping. In
Biomechanics VIII-B (edited by H. Matsui and K.
Kobayashi), pp. 856–860. Champaign, IL: Human Ki-
netics.
Watanabe, K. and Watanabe, I. (1993). Aerodynamics of
ski-jumping: effect of ‘V-style’ to distance. In XIVth
Congress of the International Society of Biomechanics Abstracts
(edited by S. Metral), pp. 1452–1453. Paris: ISB.
Yamanobe, K. and Watanabe, K. (1999). Measurement of
take-off forces in ski-jumping competition. Japanese
Journal in Biomechanics and Sports Exercise, 3, 277–286.